Shoju wrote:I'm still torn on Wheelchair. His Comp% is low (55%), but he has dealt with more drops than any other QB in the league.

From the perspective of a Seahawks fan, this is actually good news. Wilson has also had a lot of catchable passes dropped, which has cost us two games thus far (AZ and SF). I was concerned that it could be a real manifestation of the height thing.

I don't buy the "short QBs can't see" thing, because that would work both ways - tall QBs wouldn't be able to see short WRs like Steve Smith, particularly if the receiver is near the sideline due to the crown of the field.

But QBs use "throwing lanes" or they get the ball batted back in their face by defensive linesmen.

What I was concerned about is that maybe the receivers have trouble seeing the release of the ball, so it gives them less reaction time to catch the ball. But if a taller QB has more drops, maybe it's not a thing.

I remain convinced that the problem with short QBs is simply one of physics and leverage, which Wilson overcomes by having unusually long arms and large hands. The number of precision bombs I've seen this year suggests physics are not an issue.

Koatanga wrote:I don't buy the "short QBs can't see" thing, because that would work both ways - tall QBs wouldn't be able to see short WRs like Steve Smith, particularly if the receiver is near the sideline due to the crown of the field.

You lost me. In what way would a taller qb have less visibility? The bulk of the issue is seeing and throwing over the much taller linemen.

Wilson is athletic enough to compensate though. Sure he'll miss things occasionally because of his height but he has been able to offset by making plays from his other skills.

Koatanga wrote:I don't buy the "short QBs can't see" thing, because that would work both ways - tall QBs wouldn't be able to see short WRs like Steve Smith, particularly if the receiver is near the sideline due to the crown of the field.

You lost me. In what way would a taller qb have less visibility? The bulk of the issue is seeing and throwing over the much taller linemen.

Taller QBs wouldn't have less visibility than shorter QBs. I'm saying that a tall QB would have as much a problem seeing a short WR over the linemen as a short QB would have seeing a tall receiver.

But the receivers aren't very close to the lineman, even on a shallow drag they are going to be a few yards up the field. The line is continually moving back towards the QB. If you can see over the line, you can pretty easily see anyone on the field. If you can't see over that line, then your sight stops at them so you have to shift around and find gaps to see anyone. There are also blocking techniques that lower the line's height for quick passes.

Basically, tall QBs can see everyone more often than a short QB, also a tall QB has an easier time throwing over the line than a short QB. That part is pretty obvious, but I don't think it's a big handicap for Wilson. He's got a knack for finding the openings he needs and the athletic ability to pull it off. Would he be better if he was 6-4 and just as mobile? Sure, but that doesn't mean he can't do the job at 5'11'' with his other skills being pretty good.

I'm just hoping that the waiver wire is kind to me this week. I put my claim in on Davis when I saw that Gronk had a broken arm monday night, so I'm hoping that no one else suffered an injury to a TE before monday night's game (I would be awarded him on time of claim)

Really needed Chicago to step up and beat San Francisco. Now Chicago is a wild-card instead of a division leader, and my Seahawks don't hold a tie-breaker over them.

That makes the game in two weeks a Must Win, and it's an early start at Soldier Field. The Seahawks haven't been very good on the road this year, and historically have been dreadful in early games. We'll be coming off the NFL's longest road trip (Miami) as well.

New Orleans appears to have woken up, so a loss to Chicago would likely put the Bears and Saints in the wildcard spots, with Seattle on the outside looking in.

Well, I'm not going to call my Fantasy Football Season over, but.... my wife murdered me. We were watching the news together, and she saw that Gronk was hurt, and saw Mcgahee was hurt at the same time as me. What did she do? Did some homework, and claimed the guys I was going after. Since she is at 6-5, and I'm at 8-3, she got the claims, and I'm scrambling (seriously, I've made over my entire bench) to make it through these last two games.

I can't blame her, her division is quite tighter than mine, and if the playoffs started this week, she would be out, as the 2nd place team holds the tiebreakers against her. (same record) Her division is 7-4, 6-5, 6-5 (her), 5-6 (my son), 3-8. My division is 10-1, 8-3 (me), and then.... really bad from there.

I gotta say, Having your wife and son playing the same FF league as me is pretty cool, even when your wife steals your players.

No kidding... I think doing away with PATs has merit because of the mechanics of it, but it's not a play where people are prone to injury, so lumping it in as a safety thing is pretty dubious. His system of making a team have to attempt them when their kicker gets injured is absurd.

You can certainly make PATs a much more compelling part of the game without removing them. Plus the ability to go for two is a great twist that should be kept. Move it back to like 35 yards or something along those lines, and then it gets a bit more interesting.

According to some officials the league would have done away with kickoffs altogether if they could come up with some equivalent mechanic to the onsides kick.

Fridmarr wrote:No kidding... I think doing away with PATs has merit because of the mechanics of it, but it's not a play where people are prone to injury, so lumping it in as a safety thing is pretty dubious. His system of making a team have to attempt them when their kicker gets injured is absurd.

You can certainly make PATs a much more compelling part of the game without removing them. Plus the ability to go for two is a great twist that should be kept. Move it back to like 35 yards or something along those lines, and then it gets a bit more interesting.

According to some officials the league would have done away with kickoffs altogether if they could come up with some equivalent mechanic to the onsides kick.

I just think the writer is upset he lost Gronk in his fantasy football thing.

Isn't the point of having reviews to get play correct on the field? If so, then doesn't not reviewing a play because of an illegally thrown challenge flag completely undermine that intent? Good lord, if you throw a flag illegally, then that ought to be unsportsmanlike conduct (15yrd penalty and automatic 1st down), but the logic to just not review the play is staggeringly stupid.

By this measure, parks should outlaw seesaws and slides because a 4 year old tumbled and scrapped its knee...

I agree with what you said later. Guys just mad he lost gronk in fantasy. I am too, but that doesn't mean I want the PAT taken out.

From Yesterday:

Game 1. Schwartz losing out on the play review because in the heat of the moment he threw the challenge flag is BULLSHIT. They didn't take away TD's when idiots did stupid things celebrating, we shouldn't take away the review because he threw the flag.

Which... Why isn't the play challengeable? Simply because it's a scoring play? That's the dumbest crap ever. LET HIM WASTE THE CHALLENGE ON A PLAY THAT IS AUTO REVIEWED. It shouldn't be your job to make sure that he doesn't do something dumb. You wouldn't stop him from going on it on 4th and 32 from his own 10 when he is winning, why should you stop him from challenging something that it automatically reviewed?

Game 2I'm so glad that I FREAKING STOLE RGIII in the 8th round of my Fantasy Draft. STOLE HIM! I traded away my second round pick because I STOLE RGIII IN THE 8TH ROUND. Man... RGIII is amazing. Yesterday proved more than anything else, that he is NOT just a running QB. 20-28 311 yds 4td 1 int with only 28 yds rushing, coming on the heels of a 14-15 for 200 yds and 4td game. This is the type of QB that will succeed in the league. The days of Manning/BRady/Wheelchair type QB's who are limited in their mobility is coming to an end in the league. (That last sentence is just personal opinion).

Game 3My dear sweet football gods, the NYJ's are AWFUL. AWFUL I can't believe how bad their offense (and Sanchez) looks. If this season doesn't end in Ryan being fired, I don't know what it would take.

Shoju wrote:Game 1. Schwartz losing out on the play review because in the heat of the moment he threw the challenge flag is BULLSHIT. They didn't take away TD's when idiots did stupid things celebrating, we shouldn't take away the review because he threw the flag.

Which... Why isn't the play challengeable? Simply because it's a scoring play? That's the dumbest crap ever. LET HIM WASTE THE CHALLENGE ON A PLAY THAT IS AUTO REVIEWED. It shouldn't be your job to make sure that he doesn't do something dumb. You wouldn't stop him from going on it on 4th and 32 from his own 10 when he is winning, why should you stop him from challenging something that it automatically reviewed?

Yeah, the more I think about that the more annoyed I get with it. Getting the call on the field correct ought to be the highest priority. The NFL has responded that the intent of that rule is to stop a team from using challenge flags to manipulate the clock, presumably in the last two minutes of the game when challenges are supposed to come from the booth. Ignoring the fact that that rule is so broad that it also affects all scoring plays and turnovers, both of which stop the clock automatically anyhow, that's a very easy to solve problem. Have an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty (which is exactly what that is anyhow) and a 10 second run off (or it costs them a timeout) if the team is on offense, just like motion penalties.

Fortunately, the league has said that they'll take a look at that rule, but it should have never made it on the books in the first place.

Do I follow the numbers and start Jamaal Charles and Ben Jarvus Green Ellis, or do I drop one of them and go with Vick Ballard, who could come up pretty big against a Buffalo Defense that is just ABYSMAL. If I did put him in, I'd probably bench Charles who is going up against a decent Broncos D, while BJGE is going up against the Raiders, who have... not been very good at stopping the run.